Who's in charge? How Assad & Syria control the greatest stake in the Middle East

The facts speak for themselves.  If you look at the numbers above, Syria is a global embarrassment into how a country should be allowed to operate.  The tyranny and brutal justice of Bashar Assad are on clear display for the world to see.  

16, 321 killed in 451 days.  (1,226 children, 1,150 women)

65,000 others missing.

212,000 detained.

1,000,000 internally displaced.

200,000 refugees.

1.4 million at risk of famine.

And what is Bashar Assad doing to fix this?  Nothing.  He is too concerned with hanging onto power that he simply does not have.  His ability to govern is nonexistent, and his will to govern has been diverted into handling an uprising that he can not handle without sheer force.

The real question now is how long must we allow this movement to go on without our President, Secretary of State, ambassadors in the region, even uttering a word to honor those who have lost their lives trying to bring a change that this administration welcomed gladly in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt even.  The pressure quickly mounted when the U.S. withdrew any support for longtime regional partner Hosni Mubarak, yet an Iranian puppet like Assad does not even gain mention in a White House press briefing.  

This President knows what is at stake if Assad falls.  It may not be pretty, but it is worth a chance to support this potential change.  Without Assad, a TRULY free Lebanon could emerge - dismembering the results of the 2008 civil war which installed a Hezbollah-led Parliament and President - and bring a legitimate government unifying all religions and sects.  A new Lebanon without Hezbollah (which is suffering internal dissent over finance mismanagement and its leadership) and a new Syria led by the people and not governed by an heir to the throne, will change the region.  Iran's largest proxies will have been diminished, no longer giving terror groups like Hezbollah the authority they once held (Hezbollah controlled many social services in the country, generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue for the group capitalizing on everything from garbage collecting to electricity, which sparked the 2008 civil way when the Lebanese government attempted to shut off the group's secure telecommunication network, which was declared an act of war by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah). 

 All of this means that in order to sustain its ability to defend itself using its proxy network, Iran's estimated $200 million annually given to terror groups may have to increase...and its terror networks regroup.  Safe havens once held in Lebanon will now be free societies, capable of challenging Iranian meddling.  This is exactly what is needed to counter Hezbollah, which many terror experts have labeled for almost a decade as terrorism's "A-team", leading Al-Qaida in expertise.  

Why then have we allowed the people of Lebanon and Syria, approximately 25 million, to be denied an opportunity to create a new future for the youths?  Why must they have to wait another day?  How come we have outsourced any responsibility as a global leader to help resolve the problem to Russia, who has a longstanding partnership with Iran and Syria in military contracts that are probably being used in the daily bloodbaths on the streets of Homs?  Not to sound cynical, but Vladimir Putin knows probably better than anyone else how much money his country has to gain from arming Bashar Assad with Russian arms and military systems, why would he give the bat of an eye to the numbers inside Syria?  

This situation can not and will not be resolved inside the United Nations.  Rather it will be met, similar in World War II, by the dedication and partnership of freedom loving countries who challenge a power hungry menace and protect those who can not protect themselves.  The time to stop this madness is overdue, but it is clear that Assad has enough backing to hold onto whatever power he still yields, which is only through killing any dissenters.

American Foreign Policy Post bin Laden

Post the death of Al-Qaida's most recognized leader, Osama bin Laden, the United States has had to adjust its mission in the War on Terror, recognizing that the threat is indeed broad and the enemy is persistent. Reports suggesting that the number of suspected terrorists has doubled within the last twelve months, that either suggests that the intelligence community has improved it reconnaissance on suspects or the TSA has been very busy. The reality is that terrorism without action, just like before 9/11, exists. Everyday, facilitators recruiting future suicide attackers and raising funds for terror operations exist and are hoping to develop the next big plot against our way of life.


Reports from the hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday suggested that America's most prominent adversary lays in the leadership of Iran. With reports suggesting that despite continued embargoes, Iran is willing and developing plots to attack American interests, both domestic and abroad (as evidenced by the willingness to attempt an assassination of the Saudi ambassador in a Washington D.C. restaurant) should alarm people. Iran's capabilities are unrivaled globally through its use of proxy networks. The question is how capable are its once strong partners, such as with Hizbullah, to instruct and coordinate an attack on American interests?


The reality is that Iran has long positioned itself within the Middle East region to be the most operational terror outfit. Its arsenal, recruitment numbers, and statements speak for itself. Despite setbacks in its leadership in Lebanon (which should raise concern of a splinter within the group that could develop into regional factions similar to Al-Qaida) the group has some of the most dedicated and persistent warriors within its ranks.


With the continued unrest in Syria, the certainty of one of Iran's closest partners in the Sunni-Shia divide is at stake and an opportunity to distract the international community is one of the most practical possibilities in this saga. Iran is in a difficult situation economically and is constantly looking for a way out, as evidenced by the previous reports of it seeking to increase oil exports and other strategic partnerships globally. It has laid a stake in various parts of Africa as well as in South America, particularly in Venezuela.


Strategically, without a unified voice to denounce the killings of protestors on the streets inside Syria, Bashar al-Assad will remain in power. The risks are too high for not only his regime, but also within the Iranian leadership which has aided Assad for years. The religious leadership of Iran, led by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomenei, views every struggle as part of a religious commitment to fulfill the coming of the Mahdi and bringing about the end of the world. This delusion/ambition destroys the probability of reasoning with the real deciders, Iran's Supreme Council, is null.


Iran is a ticking time bomb that poses a grave threat to Israel, the U.S. and its Western allies as well as the entire Middle East region. The capabilities of Iran, combined with its undeclared nuclear program and its global network of terrorists place an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy and its need to deal and address the issue now rather than procrastinate and allow further development. Iran's leadership is religiously motivated and dependent on the apocalyptic theology and the necessity to bring this scenario about.


With the death of Osama bin Laden, the War on Terror developed into a new phase that determined that the enemy is no longer just one man who we sought to bring to justice, but rather a collection of groups seeking to destroy the fundamental rights of humanity. The reality is Iran utilizes its networks for terrorism, as well as being complicit and involved in actions killing U.S. soldiers inside Afghanistan and within Iraq in the past. U.S. policy must address the lapses in its inability to adequately confront and halt Iran in its quest for what is assuredly for nuclear weapons. Consistently, the largest threat against the U.S. has been Hizbullah. Due to its global networking and capabilities, combined with its complacency in criminal enterprises such as drug trafficking, this group will remain the most extensive enemy against the West.

Committing to a resolution for Iran

2011 has been a whirlwind year, with the emergence of the "Arab Spring" throughout the Middle East and the recent death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, this is hardly a time for the U.S. to mull presidential candidates with little to no foreign policy backbone. While TIME magazine recognized "the Protester" as its person of the year, it clearly showed how strong an impact one person can have - for better or worse. Now as Syrian protesters continue to be massacred on the streets, the U.S. stays mum to the violence committed by President Bashar Assad. Whatever happens in Syria could be part of a larger trail that could ultimately lead to Iran, resulting in either a stronger Islamic republic under Khomenei or a new democracy. Now, more than ever is the time to act in Iran and to sustain all current actions.

To the West and especially Israel, the largest concern from Iran has been with the undeclared and unregulated nuclear pursuits of a country that seeks to control the region and the world. This is a country that is bigger than its borders, exploiting partnerships in various regions to expand and establish presence inside virtually every corner of the globe. For the time being, Iran's activities have been primarily centered around fundraising. However, recent reports show that the U.S. has effectively diminished the flow of funds from Iran to groups like Hizbollah by as much as 25%. Continued sanctions can help manage the world's largest exporter of terrorism, but it does little to end the threat posed by Iran's proxies. Furthermore, the apparent drying up of money has reportedly pushed Hizbollah operatives in Northern Lebanon to deal drugs in an attempt to make up for losses.

Strategically, now is perhaps one of the most opportune times for the U.S. to capitalize on the revolutionary movements emerging throughout the region as well as the insecurity of Iran's government. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced he will not run in the election in 2013, and the sanctions have proven disruptive to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and its funding of Hizbollah, which is reportedly in turmoil amid reports of internal corruption which reportedly had the group's investment manager having embezzled as much as $1.6 billion. That is how much money we are talking about. Consider Western intelligence having placed Hizbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah to have a net worth of $250 million.

According to reports, Iran's Revolutionary Guard is growing increasingly frustrated with Hizbollah amid the corruption allegations. Hizbollah, regarded as "the A-team of terror" amid intelligence circles, has taken a serious hit and may be at a bypass with many of its senior leaders and the IRGC. With the tension between Iran and Hizbullah building, and an inability to deliver funds, Iran's biggest and most feared proxy is in a weakened state. Combined with upcoming elections in 2013 and the growing movement inside Syria, Iran's biggest assets are in a struggle that they can either emerge stronger or weakened.

Last week, Ahmadinejad announced that by 2013 his country will be a major gasoline exporter. This move is a direct affront to the threat and usage of sanctions in an effort for his country to establish independence similar to its establishment of a joint bank venture with Venezuela.

Opportunity exists for the U.S. to partner with Western countries and regional players in seeking a new Iran that eliminates the violent rhetoric and apocalyptic direction that Ayatollah Khomenei seeks, regardless of who the country's president is. As Rep. Ron Paul questions why the U.S. should be meddling in Iranian affairs, the fact remains that with or without U.S. surveillance, Iran has an undeclared nuclear program, has consistently been the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, and has backed attacks globally on U.S. assets via its network of proxies.

Iran's toughening stance and the Arab Spring conflict

With news forthcoming regarding a plot to murder Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Adel Al-Jubeir, it is clear as is to be expected that the Iranians continue to be up to no good. Perhaps, this plot best summarizes the state of the Middle East post-Arab Spring revolutions - a region conflicted by the interests of Sunni Saudi Arabia and the Shia Iran. This power struggle by the two dominant powers of the region has taken form in various battles, mainly via subversive strategic episodes utilizing proxies. As the U.S. makes its case against the two Qods force linked operatives, it appears that Iran should indeed have a lot of explaining to do.

What is particularly significant in this case is the direct link between Manssor Arbabsiar and a DEA confidential informant (CI). Arbabsiar had been led to the CI because of his suspected narcotics trafficking contacts, which Gholam Shakuri advised utilizing because "people in that business are willing to undertake criminal activity in exchange for money." Douglas Farah and several others have written extensively on the risks of abandoning the War on Drugs faces when the various criminal enterprises collide with terrorist groups. Groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban have extensively utilized them as a method for fundraising and contract operations such as this one and keep their hands clean.

I believe the record speaks for itself, since 9/11 the U.S. has created and used an extensive network of CI's who have fortunately been helpful in providing information regarding plots both here and abroad. It is these individuals who help in making a case and disrupting plots like this.

However, there are a lot of questions that most assuredly are going through U.S. policymakers minds as well as within the Saudi circles. Iran's last linked attacks against a state were the bombings of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992, as well as a Jewish center in 1994 in the same city. Reports suggest that the recently disrupted plots indicated a renewed interest in striking the exact same city, which suggests a vast network by Qods force intermediaries in the Latin American region. Given the recent threats by Iran to deploy its navy along the U.S. Eastern seaboard, as well as this plot to for the first time conduct an operation against a U.S. ally on our soil, Iran is continuing to take an aggressive posturing that should be investigated.

The internal struggle in Iran is pressing for lame-duck President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now a political outcast by Ayatollah Khomenei for defying him in the appointment of the country's intelligence minister, Ahmadinejad is a lightweight for the country's affairs. That should be the scary part, is the theocracy now controls everything down to foreign affairs. Take into consideration that this theocracy calls for the end times and the coming of the Mahdi which they are supposed to govern in order to bring this momentous occasion about. This is a very dangerous concoction of delusional, religious dictators who see themselves in direct conflict with the West and now appear to be fixing to take a much more outward approach in reforming the globe and their region.

The U.S. should stand strictly by Saudi Arabia in this instance, and given the direct action of war this plot would have created if it had been successful, the strict interest of the world should be securing Iran's unchecked nuclear program and arsenal. As facts emerge as to how high up the totem pole this plot reached within Iran's government (which undoubtedly it would not be surprising for it to reach the upper echelons inside Qods Force, IRGC, and the Supreme Council on Natl. Security), it is necessary to keep the leadership of the country within confines and urge the Arab Spring revolutions to rise again inside this country. Iran's leadership can not be trusted and needs to be closely monitored. Undoubtedly, this incident has the Israelis and the Saudis doing just that.

The chaos of bureaucracy: DHS and Congress' failure to understand the threats of today

With the killing of ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata lingering in discussions on the Hill and south of the border, the United States is now put in a difficult place of refining its immigration policies at the border and its relationship with Mexico. Since President Obama took office, immigration has been shoved under the stacks of paper for matters like health care that his administration has chosen to pursue. Under his administration, the intelligence apparatus of this country have continuously been abandoned and brought to shame and the violence that many warn about migrating north from the small towns of Mexico remain as big a threat as ever.


The Department of Homeland Security has failed in its mission of protecting the homeland time and time again, with its abandonment of protecting our borders. Yet again, our country is forced to respond too little and too late to an embarrassing situation where a respected member of law enforcement has fallen victim to senseless violence. The War on Drugs is something that many say is a policy that is failed and not worth the time and effort poured into it according to many legislators, but this incident proves that while they sit in their secured offices around the Capitol, they know nothing about the violence occurring to the south. Our borders remain easily penetrable and have continuously proven porous for the likes of terrorist financiers from groups like Hezbollah to cross through. How long will it take before we see a weapon smuggled?


Iran's proxies such as Hezbollah hold a strong role in Latin America, utilizing the narco trade to finance their groups and transport weapons and materials supporting rebel groups in the region. Venezuela, an influential Iranian ally, has continuously been found guilty of using its Air Force and military commanders as fronts for FARC rebels to ship cocaine out and smuggle Hezbollah associates in. We know Hezbollah has operatives inside this country, mostly for fundraising practices, but how long will it be before one of these networks is responsible for the deaths of Americans? With tensions between Iran and Western allies abroad, the U.S. should be especially vigilant for a display of power and capability in this hemisphere by an Iranian proxy should tensions escalate further.


Coincidentally, in late January, Border Patrol agents found a unique copy of a legendary Iranian book called In Memory of Our Martyrs. The book, an original copy and one of few English versions printed, was found on a well-traveled immigration and drug route. Being that the book was in English and not in Farsi, it may very well be that the person carrying it may not be Iranian, however, it is a very unique find that should be taken seriously. Iran is in a war right now to flex its muscle and remain relevant to the global scene, and it is no coincidence that as the Mideast erupts, Tehran dispatches ships to the Suez canal as they wave farewell to one of the Ayatollah's strongest foes, Hosni Mubarak. As Qaddafi falls to a similar fate in Libya, Iran may very well look to display its capabilities in this hemisphere by striking in Latin America like it did in Argentina in 1994. With its established network in the West, the options for a faux superpower like Tehran suddenly expand to a variety of exposed targets.

The impact of Egyptian Revolution across the Region: A Risk Assessment

As protesters continue to take to the streets of Egypt, the risk of the revolution becoming something it never intended to be increases with the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in what the White House says will "irrevocably change" Egypt. Whether that is for the better or worse nobody seems to care about, the only real issue to Pres. Obama is that Mubarak (a U.S. ally and very, very close partner in the War on Terror) seems to be out. From day one, the strategy for handling this situation has been negligent and dumbfounded at best. We were without hesitation ready to jump on board and push President Mubarak out of power, even before understanding who may succeed his reign.


Now, with the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in this "democratic revolution", we have handed one of our closest partners in the WoT seemingly over to the jihadists. Egypt is now gone, and there is no turning back. We have betrayed not only the Mubarak administration (if they somehow find a way to hold on), but the military institutions and intelligence service contacts (what else is new, we lost that with Wikigate). The level of embarassment brought on by the Obama administrations' mishandling of sensitive material, partnered with its failure to share vital intelligence that could prove useful to our allies, has weakened the United States and forced our hand into the global arena as a puppet and not a superpower.


Egypt is now the Ground Zero for Muslim revolution, it will be the tipping point for Sharia law being implemented throughout the region, and will most assuredly impact major players throughout the region like Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Should the Brotherhood and ElBaradei gain control of the country, the face of the Middle East and the world will change. I do not believe the revolution has so much to do with democratic reform, rather the ousting of a president who has controlled his country for too long and aligned himself with Western influence. This is a bid by radical Islam to topple a necessary ally for the U.S., and force a transformation of Middle East policy.


The issue occurring inside Egypt boils down to one thing - Salafist Islam. Salafist Islam by definition desires to see Islam brought back to its purest roots. Doctrinally, Salafs adhere to a very strict form of Islam that seeks to integrate and praise Allah through all aspects of life. This is what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood seek to perpetuate in broad government reforms that allow violence to be a tool to implement this. Any person who does not believe is wrong to them, there is no other religion in a Salafist state. On the heels of the New Year's Eve bombing of a church in Alexandria, Christians should be alarmed about their religious freedoms. The Brotherhood will advocate, if not utilize, force to crackdown on resistance and alternate religions.


The biggest risk coming from Egypt involves the potential merger between the Salafs and Iran. If you need to see the future of Egypt, just take a look at Mohamed ElBaradei's track record. This man, the presumed post-Mubarak, Brotherhood-partnered, former IAEA director who allowed Iran's undeclared nuclear program to go unchecked under his tenure. ElBaradei will become the new Assad for the Ayatollah, making Egypt an Iranian proxy surrounding Israel and destroying the peace accord. If the Salaf Brotherhood merges with Tehran, the potential is limitless for state-sponsored terrorism to reach unprecedented levels in the region. Terrorism will cross boundaries, governments, terror groups, and it will all flow into a limitless nexus of violence.


This sharing of resources and personnel can empower groups like Hezbollah - which has an arsenal of weapons at least 5x greater than it had with its 2006 war with Israel - to renew violence against Israel and will bring in weakened countries that sat out previously (like Syria) into the mix. The real question now is where is Saudi Arabia? With King Abdullah in a weakened state after receiving back surgery, who will he lend his support to. The last thing the Sunnis want is an Iranian/Shi'a controlled Caliphate. In 2006, with the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict, the Saudis provided weaponry and military assistance secretly to Israel through back channels, so as to not risk an uprising at home for giving the Zionists any support.


Egypt is too great a risk to sit idly on the sidelines and wait for a new government to emerge while we pander to the very forces we have declared war on. The Brotherhood is a violent, deceptive group that ultimately seeks to bring about the Caliphate. If we fail to act, we will lose the Middle East and empower Iran. The time to bring about democratic reform is now, but to hand over any hope of those to an organization wishing to implement shariah is far from democratic.

Tackling terrorism..in theory. Why the Nuclear Summit failed.

During the Cold War, many who were alive can recall the "Duck and Cover" videos that cautioned preparedness for a nuclear attack. The fear that the United States would fall victim to a nuclear attack was something that was ever present in the minds of that generation that witnessed missiles sitting just off the coast of the Southern U.S. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This week, President Obama hosted the Nuclear Summit in Washington D.C., requesting all participating countries to take initiatives to deter against nuclear terrorism. To many in the mainstream media, this is a step that is significant in the public relations front of the War on Terror. However, as with many PR-oriented conferences on terrorism, they play to the public perception and continue to miss the mark on the issues that must be addressed in the constant struggle against those seeking to attack and kill innocent lives.


Since the 9/11 attacks, there has been the question of when will the U.S. suffer another attack? Since that day in 2001, we have been attacked by radical jihadist sympathizers, but have yet to see the face of any actual members of radical groups like Al-Qaida. In fact, Al-Qaida has suffered immense financial losses due to Treasury Dept. initiatives targeting their revenue lines. This fact leads to the point that in order to look for the next attack, the risk of an independent terrorist organization being able to piece together a nuclear missile on their own, or hijack a nuclear plant, is at an extremely low probability. Experts have said for years now that the cost/success potential for such a costly operation is drastically low due to the safeguards installed after 2001, even if Al-Qaida, the number one enemy of the U.S. had the funds to coordinate such an operation.


This puts into play the real concern that should be addressed, especially as President Obama was able to get over 40 countries into Washington at one time. Terrorist groups operate freely and gain license from state-sponsors in many countries. The finances of a group are provided by states and/or charity sponsors who may or may not have the knowledge of where their funds are going. Without countries making an effort to halt the flow of money into terrorist hands, many groups would face a difficult fight while trying to recruit and train future militants, as well as fund operations. Hezbollah is a group that still has opportunity to fund raise inside many European countries, who have chosen to turn a blind eye to the group's activities simply because Hezbollah has not targeted them in any attacks. Do we really want to live in a society that turns a blind eye to the atrocities abroad and only wish to respond when we fall victim?


State-sponsors of terror such as Syria, which has sought to pull the Obama State Dept. to them while providing little in return (especially when pertaining to issues regarding Iran) should be what the 40 some countries present this week should be talking about. As the U.S. and other EU countries continue to discuss sanctions, I can't help but remember what I heard one Treasury Dept. official say at a meeting - "Sanctions are not meant to fix the problem, they are meant to bring someone to the table to talk about fixing the problem. If they aren't working, they aren't gonna work unless you can and are willing to target the target's essentials."


The threat of nuclear terrorism is something that would not be addressed at this time if it wasn't for Iran's continued defiance of international cooperation in regulating their program. So long as Iran remains the most active state-sponsor for global terrorism, the international community should not play games and massage a country that has gone rogue to international relations. We haven't seen a nuclear attack by a terrorist group, and there isn't one on the way. Nuclear terrorism is something that makes a great episode of 24, but the real battle against terrorism comes down to those who perpetrate and organize it. Whether its airplanes being used as missiles into buildings or a gunman on the streets, that is the form of terrorism that will continue to thrive. Targeting a method of terrorism is only missing the mark in what should be a clear shot at those who perpetrate it.

U.S.-Syrian relations on the horizon?

During a trip this week, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated that he believed under the incoming Obama administration "the situation will improve between the United States and Syria after we have a new president." This type of rhetoric remains in line with Syrian President Assad's commitment to pursue talks with the U.S. once a new administration had been set. Now, the Bush administration is in its final month and prepares to hand off to President-elect Obama.


Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.


There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:

"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."

The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.


With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.


Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.


Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:

"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."

History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.

Assessing Iran and U.S. policy under the next administration

Needless to say, the nuclear standoff with Iran lingers on as the West attempts to threaten the Islamic state with more sanctions. Despite its consistent defiance of the obligations listed in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran seems to not be willing to negotiate on many aspects of its "peaceful" nuclear program. As the Bush administration leaves office, it appears Iran will be a situation dealt with by the next U.S. President.


As reports come out that suggest President Bush is willing to give Iran some diplomatic legitimacy by establishing an interests section potentially during his final month in office, one must wonder at what point does a lame duck president sit back and allow his successor to take the reigns. After three years of consistent rhetoric on alienating Iran diplomatically, a sudden reversal of U.S. policy would be detrimental in allowing the next administration to resolve the issue.


While the next administration will likely change the U.S. approach towards Iran, it must continue to declare that an Iranian state that sponsors terrorism and desires to possess a completely unregulated nuclear program is not acceptable. Without Iran providing any reasons to change U.S. policy drastically, preemptively providing a potential incentive to bribe them into coming to the table is not going to be the missing piece to the issue.


The best hope is to potentially pursue paths of alienating Iranian allies such as Syria. By potentially separating an Iranian ally that has historically held an anti-Western approach and providing a new face on U.S. policy in the Mid-East of cooperation with regimes that are willing to change their stance, a new phase of negotiations in this crisis can be achieved. However, if either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to separate state sponsors of terrorism. Without any form of commitment on that regard, U.S. relations should not be pursued with those countries. By removing a strong Iranian ally, the potential to enhance relations could be achieved through Syria's establishment as a comfortable middle-ground and precedent.


Under the new President and his Secretary of State, there is potential for a breakthrough regarding Iran. However, it is necessary that the pressure remains existent on all levels until a reversal of support for international meddling via terror groups is obtained from Iranian leadership. Issues should be addressed one step at a time, and while the U.S. would like to see numerous changes in Tehran, the situation should be dealt with one step at a time. If either side too hastily pursues a radical compromise the situation will be exacerbated. The ultimate goal of the U.S. should be to encourage Iranian participation, not isolation, in international affairs. This issue should be addressed as the primary goal, and could be an issue that if pursued by Iran, could allow easier negotiations on the requirements of its nuclear program.


Only time will tell how Iran will greet the change of American leadership, but it will continue to be a difficult situation so long as each side consistently promotes a division and intolerance for the other. By potentially connecting the cultures in common pursuits, this gap can be overcome. Through forming common partnerships that enhance cooperation in the region, the U.S. can not be seen as an invading force but rather as an ally of the Middle East. The situation is difficult, but there is the hope that doors will open that allow Iran and the West to pursue negotiations and relationships in the future.

If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. III)

This is the third of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.


After President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, the Western powers lost any successes obtained in negotiating a resolution to Iran's nuclear pursuits. Ahmadinejad has made it very clear that the nuclear "know-how" is part of a vast religious obligation to utilize his power for the coming of the Mahdi. There was one dilemma. Iran was not capable of independently creating its nuclear program, it needed assistance. Once again, Ahmadinejad set out on his goal of forming a strategic partnership with a country that possessed what the Islamic republic lacked.

The criteria that formed the African and Latin American alliances was the same - a leader who was not willing to bow to Western influence and opposed the increasing American Imperialist movement. With North Korea constantly in talks over its program and Libya's agreement to abandonment, Ahmadinejad found a friend in Russia. Russia offered a partnership that elevated Iran from the shadows of international diplomacy and brought it to new levels. With Russian President Vladimir Putin's repeated criticisms of U.S. policy, Iran now had a major voice in international affairs - as well as a country which possessed the ability to veto any measures drafted in the UN Security Council.

With Russia's increased involvement with Tehran, there are several issues of concern. In 2005, it is reported that trade between the two countries was in excess of $1 billion, making Russia the seventh largest exporter to Iran. Estimates suggest that exports from Russia could grow to $10 billion annually within years. With such an invested stake in Iranian exports, Russian desire to impose increased sanctions has predictably been in opposition. It should be no surprise then that on September 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that he saw "no need for urgent measures against Iran." Those comments were made one week after an IAEA report criticized Iran for not allowing the agency to fully investigate certain aspects of the nuclear program.

The chief area of trade that has seen a spike under Ahmadinejad's presidency is arms sales, which has put Russian arms dealers as the chief suppliers to Iran. In 2006 Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Washington's Institute for Near East Policy's Military and Security Studies Program, said that the Islamic Republic was specifically seeking to increase it's air defense capabilities.

Late last year, the announcement came that Russia had agreed to sell Iran its S-300 air defense system, one of the most advanced of its kind. Capable of tracking around 100 targets simultaneously while intercepting up to 12 from a distance of over 100 miles, the reported sale was for deployment specifically around Iranian nuclear sites to dissuade Israel from any air strike on such sites. Now, amid reports that the system could be delivered by late this year, both Russia and Iran refuse to confirm nor deny whether there is such an agreement. The Russian Foreign Ministry has only stated that "we do not intend to deliver those types of arms to countries which are located in troubled regions." However, Russia has deployed the S-300 in Syria and the director for the Russian arms exports agency, Rosoboronexport, was quoted by Russian media on September 17 that his agency was in advanced negotiations to sell S-300 missiles to Iran. The agency later issued a statement denying that it had sold such missiles to Iran, but did not speak to whether or not there were talks for their sale. It is highly probable that Iran will seek to enhance its defenses around facilities such as its Bushehr reactor, which the Russian agency Atomstroyexport has stated should be operational by early to mid 2009.

While the official dealings of the Russian government remain unclear with Tehran, the most frightening component of all remains an ever present force in the Russian economy. Black market arms dealers continue to operate with relative ease in Moscow, creating a dangerous link with the Russian government that could extend into Iran and its proxies such as Hizbullah. To see the cooperation that exists between Russian officials and black market arms dealers, one need not look further than the case of Viktor Bout, the "Lord of War," who was arrested in Thailand in March. After Thai authorities agreed to drop their charges to allow a quicker extradition to the U.S., where he faces several charges related to terrorism, there have been several reports that the Russian Foreign Ministry is attempting to broker military sales with the Thai prime minister in exchange for Bout. According to Douglas Farah, despite a 20o2 Interpol Red Notice requiring Bout's arrest and a Belgian warrant for his arrest for money laundering, Bout resided in Moscow and used at least five Russian passports.

Bout is just one example of how Russia has used the black market to insert itself into the global dynamics, enabling and controlling conflict. Russian weapons were present in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanese conflict, which allowed Hizbullah to use advanced armor-piercing Russian missiles. Farah has stated that "such activities project Russian power, at a time when the Putin government is desperate to project Russian power across the world, as well as provide outlets for the sale of Russian weapons." Reports of late, most recently in September by Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested that Russian weapons sold to Syria were ending up in the hands of Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. The increasing concern should be the shadowy trend of Russian deals, specifically regarding the sales of weapons and the continued blind eye given by the Russian government regarding black market operations inside its country.

A growing problem is the scenario of black market sales regarding nuclear material originating in Russia. The growing trend of smuggling nuclear material from Russia has taken a path through the two territories where the Russian-Georgian crisis began in September - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Most of the time, sellers attempt to sell off spent material that would prove useless in the construction of a nuclear weapon. However, there have been several arrests made by Georgian authorities that involve Russian individuals attempting to smuggle Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Last year, a Russian national was sentenced to eight years in a Georgian jail for attempting to sell 100 g of HEU for $1 million. Experts say that while the quality of the material would be suitable in weapons construction, the quantity remained insufficient. It should be noted that so far in Georgia, there have been publicized arrests in 2003 and 2006 that involved the attempted sale of HEU.

There are substantial implications for the fight against terrorism if the international community can not lure Russia to cooperate in an international effort. While Russia states that it will not do business in "troubled regions," its black market agents are involved in conflicts ranging from Africa to the Mideast to Latin America. The partnership of Russia and Iran brings in the component of a criminal network to Tehran's quest for globalization. The ability by both Iran and Russia to mask their global activities promotes a relationship that is dangerous to international affairs and creates yet another obstacle in resolving the West's standoff regarding Iran's nuclear activities. Through Iran's network of terrorist proxies, as well as Russia's connection to global crime, another dangerous alliance has been formed that compromises international security concerns at a time when the UN has sought to create a comprehensive, global effort to combat terrorism globally.

Update on Pt. II of Iran's influence

As I wrote my piece on Iran's influence in Africa last week, details began to come in over an ongoing incident off of Somalia's coast.

On August 21, a team of nearly 40 pirates armed with RPGs and AK-47s blocked the passage of an Iranian cargo ship. The captain of the MV Iran Deyanat was forced to surrender his ship to the Somali pirates, who were banking on another vessel to add to their captured fleet of nearly a dozen vessels.

Immediately, questions should surface over the Deyanat's declared cargo of "minerals" and "industrial products." Both industries that the Revolutionary Guard holds a heavy stake in.

Affirming suspicions, the MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which is a state-owned company run by the Iranian military and included in a list of companies blacklisted by the U.S. Treasury Dept. on September 10. The official statement explains the extent of IRISL's collusion with Iranian entities.


"Not only does IRISL facilitate the transport of cargo for U.N. designated proliferators, it also falsifies documents and uses deceptive schemes to shroud its involvement in illicit commerce," said Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "IRISL's actions are part of a broader pattern of deception and fabrication that Iran uses to advance its nuclear and missile programs."


Upon the hijacking of the Deyanat, the crew of 29 was separated from the vessel after the pirates moved it to a fishing village in northeastern Somalia, Eyl. Reportedly within days after the pirates boarded the vessel to search the cargo, several of them fell "gravely ill." Andrew Mwangura, Director of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program, has confirmed the claim by the pirates of several fatalities. The fatalities have been attributed to individuals who came in contact with the ship's cargo containers. Many of the individuals suffered skin burns and loss of hair (which many have suggested is indicative of radiation or chemical exposure).

After news of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the ship reached the government of the region in Garowe, a delegation was dispatched to negotiate with the pirates. Led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman, the team was sent on September 4. Osman has said during the six days of negotiations with the pirates, the group had members become ill and die. Osman's assessment of the vessel:

"That ship is unusual. It is not carrying a normal shipment."

The pirates reportedly threatened to blow up the ship's cargo hold should the government attempt to force a search of the vessel. The pirates stated that they had been unsuccessful at opening the ship's seven cargo containers due to not possessing the access codes. After the standoff, Osman was able to establish contact with members of the ship's crew and ask questions pertaining to the cargo. The captain and engineer of the Deyanat reportedly shared different answers when asked about what they were transporting. What initially was crude oil then developed into minerals over the questioning.

The tale gets more interesting with the establishment of the ransom by the pirates. Set at $2 million, the Iranian government reportedly had agreed to pay the price and had moved $200,000 to a local broker in hopes of finalizing the release. Then came the September 10 sanctions announcement, which triggered Iran to call off the deal. With an increased U.S. naval presence off the coast, the Iranians could not gain access to the ship. All hopes of moving the ship out of the region without interception were shattered, leaving the ship still off of Eyl. Iranian media has reported the U.S. has offered $7 million for the ship.

The ultimate answer of what is on the MV Iran Deyanat still remains in the ship's cargo containers. Officials in Somalia suggest that the ship was carrying weapons destined for Eritrea, and ultimately Islamist militants fighting in Somalia. At the very least, it is known small arms were destined for the country's jihadist movement. However, due to the circumstances surrounding the Deyanat's seizure, it is highly probable that chemical weapons were destined for the militants as well. Iran has an involvement with the Somali rebels, having sent the Islamic Courts Union anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry in 2006. Furthermore, a UN report from the same year states that Iran sent two representatives to negotiate with the ICU for access to Somalia's uranium mines.

As Iran's influence in well-established regions of Africa has soared, it's increased involvement in fresh areas should be of great concern. Whatever is on the Deyanat, it is of interest to a great deal of officials. The ship's links to the Iranian government shows that Tehran's military is still flaunting its abilities to circumvent any actions taken against it. Should Iran be able to secure the ship's release from the pirates, chances are the ship will end up scrubbed in hopes of leaving questions unanswered. It remains pretty clear that there is no intention of moving it so long as the U.S. has Task Force 150 perched off the coast ready to intercept.

If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. II)

This is the second of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.


Under a new president in 2005, Iran began a push for developing itself as the voice of the Islamic world. One of Ahmadinejad's key principles as the Islamic Republic's president is to take actions that would promote the coming of the Mahdi (the Islamic redeemer who will come and rule the world). Even in his UN General Assembly speech this week, Ahmadinejad threw in references to Islamic rule and the Mahdi.

But Ahmadinejad capitalized on the goodwill of his Islamic beliefs and his "religious obligations," using Islam as a veil to promote Iranian influence among various regions. The most notable of which has been in Africa.

In 2006, President Ahmad Abdallah Sambi was elected president of the Comoros Islands, off Africa's eastern coast. It was then that Iranian influence in the country surged coincidentally. According to a local politician in the country, Iranian elements were given control of President Sambi's security, both inside the island and on his trips abroad. However, Iran also established a presence in other aspects of the Comoros. Since 2006, Iran has created a medical center linked to the Iranian Red Cross, a cultural center, and a center for human aid called the Al-Khomeini Committee for Help in the Comoros Islands.

Iran seems to have capitalized on its investments in the Comoros. It found its link with President Sambi, who studied at religious schools in Iran throughout his youth. The country, which is largely Sunni Arab, has undergone what some see as a Shi'a revolution thanks to Tehran's involvement. Some have accused President Sambi as having become a practicing Shiite, even earning the title of "Ayatollah" (a Shiite religious authority respected for matters of religious law and interpretation).

To illustrate the enhanced partnership between the two countries, just yesterday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, the headline in Tehran was "Iran, Comoros keen to boost ties". Both presidents agreed at UNGA for the increased cooperation on "energy and development fields."

Now, back to the growth of the Iranian proxies in the same region. In May, pictures emerged of purported Hizbullah rallies and supporters in Nigeria. Not a surprise to many officials who have seen the activities of the group expand over the past few years. Dr. J Peter Pham, an expert on Africa, commented that when analysts have been looking at Africa over the years the trend has been to identify an area as "traditionally one thing or another without accounting for the possibility of dynamic change." This has been precisely where terror groups thrive, by supplying what the governments have failed to provide in the third world countries throughout the region. Their aid fills in gaps, breeding a change in favor of the terror group.

Take for instance the establishment of the Islamic University College of Ghana in 1988 by the Ahlul Bait Foundation, an Iranian organization. It is reported that all the administrators and the president of the College are all Iranian. In fact, the school's most recent president, Dr. Gholamreza Rahmani Miandehi, has five listings of work experience in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The school's website discusses how it is intended to provide an education to families, charging a "low fee" and "being open to all qualified persons, regardless of religion, race, ethnic, or geographical background."

It is the lack of transparency of these Iranian establishments abroad that should be of concern to many. The willingness to conduct illegal activities veiled under the guise of Islamic charities is one that has been seen before, whether it be Saudi charities using their status to export weapons to Bosnia and Afghanistan or the many Palestinian charities used for suicide bomber's families.

It has long been reported that Hizbullah had shady ties to the West African illegal diamond trade, laundering potentially tens of millions of dollars annually from the region for the group's support. In 2003, Union Transport Africaines Flight 141 crashed after take-off from Benin, West Africa. Destined for Beirut, a "foreign relations official of the African branch of the Lebanese Hizballah party and two of his aides" were among those killed. Traveling with the Hizbullah officials was nearly $2 million that the group was moving to Hizbullah headquarters. The accident shed a light as to just how profitable West Africa was to the terror group.

Hizbullah has long held a presence in Sierra Leone, dating back to the 1980s. The group, similar to its presence in Latin America, has used the large Lebanese immigrant communities in the country to conceal its operatives and actions. Furthermore, the potential for corruption and bribery amongst the country's law enforcement permits the group to avoid confrontation.

In 2004, two individuals were arrested for suspected ties to terrorist groups and moving weapons and diamonds illegally. Paddy McKay and Khalil Lakish used fraudulent papers to register four aircraft in the country. McKay, a British national with suspected Al-Qaida links, and Lakish, a Lebanese descendant residing in Sierra Leone with reported Hizbullah ties, reportedly used the planes to transport illicit diamonds and weapons to the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. By 2005, the story from the Ministry for Transportation and Communication had changed to “McKay enjoys a normal and professional business relationship with the department of Civil Aviation and the Government of Sierra Leone… all airline operators are properly registered and do not have any terrorist connections.” African corruption at its finest.

In 2004, the UN special envoy estimated that out of the official number of $130 million worth of diamonds exported from Sierra Leone, the real figure laid around $300-500 million. A slight discrepancy in an issue that has provided funds for groups like Al-Qaida and Hizbullah. With the aid of smugglers like McKay and Lakish, groups will always have an ability to move their funds.

Ahmadinejad saw that Iran filled the void where Saudi Arabia had once dominated. Where Saudi charities and Sunni Islamic values had once ruled, Iran was beginning to replace them with Shiite "goodwill missions." Through offering health care, education, and jobs in countries where governments had failed, Iran was able to become a powerful force throughout the struggling African countries. Iranian proxies continued with their well-established presence in certain areas, but sought to expand to vulnerable areas as well. By capitalizing on the weaknesses of a continent, Iran was yet again able to spread its message of anti-Imperialism and its opposition to the Western powers with no resistance. Once again, the U.S. and its allies sat idle as Iran continued its development as a global power.

If we close our eyes, we can say nothing happened (Pt. I)

This is the first of three parts detailing Iran's growing influence in various regions. From Latin America to Africa to Europe, Iran has undeniably risen from the shadows largely due to its mouthy president who emerged in 2005 and its proxies' expansion. In such a short period of time, the growth of the Khomenist state has extended to nearly every hemisphere, facing little resistance by the West and its allies. As the standoff with Iran continues, it is important to understand the reality of the religious state that many say is now the key to Middle East policy.


As a new administration begins to take office and will undoubtedly adopt some policy against Iran that has not been working for over a decade, let's talk about the real threats posed by Iran. For too long, U.S. policymakers have closed their eyes to the growing Iranian influence that is allowing it to take such a hold on the international scale. From Latin America, to Europe, to Africa, Iran quickly began to develop allies in virtually every region of the world while the U.S. did nothing.

In case you haven't noticed, U.S. policy should have changed in 2005, but the U.S. had no plan to confront a changing Iran. Now don't get me wrong, the U.S. did do something, but according to former Treasury Dept. official Matt Levitt, it has been the same thing that it did throughout the 1990s - more sanctions. Levitt says:

"In dealing with Iran sanctions have a large role but this is only one piece of the process. Sanctions are meant to levy diplomatic leverage. Like sanctions, neither diplomacy nor military force will work alone. A coherent combination of these strategies must be applied. We cannot simply engage Iran for the sake of engaging."

As Ahmadinejad won the presidency, the Iran that once lurked in the shadows of the almighty Ayatollah suddenly began - surprise - the process of globalization. The process that the West had pioneered and championed came back to bite it, and Ahmadinejad became a household name within days for championing ludicrous statements about Jews and Israel.

One has to wonder why some Marxist like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela would partner with the religiously motivated Ahmadinejad of Iran. However, Ahmadinejad extended his hand and then gained more influence in the Latin American region than his country had a decade prior to his taking office. Iran soon had ties to Chavez allies in Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and most recently an embassy being established in U.S. friendly Colombia.

The Iranian-Latin American cooperation has surged since its establishment under Ahmadinejad. The partnership of Ahmadinejad and Chavez has been one of the strongest alliances to develop over a short period of time, with the sole basis of "anti-Imperialism" as its cornerstone.

In a region where Hizbullah has operated for decades, primarily for fundraising but still having been involved in attacks on Jewish targets during the 1990s, the group found a government willing to turn a blind eye to its activities thanks to Ahmadinejad.

Conveniently, one of the steps that was taken in May by the two co-conspirators was to partner in a joint banking venture between Tehran and Caracas. Hizbullah and Tehran, both impacted by Western sanctions repeatedly, now had the ability to move and launder money throughout the world without having any system of reporting. Furthermore, how much money was being moved would remain a mystery without having to use any expansive network of banks. But this move was not the first one made that would clearly benefit the Iranian terror network.

In March 2007, the two countries took a huge step. IranAir began weekly flights from Caracas to Tehran, with a stop conveniently in Damascus. In this year's State Department Assessment for Global Terrorism, it was noted that Venezuelan border officials frequently failed to record the information of arriving passengers from Iran and neglected to stamp their passports. It's been reported that the issue has now been corrected.

However, why would you not record who is entering your country at all? It's probably not VIPs traveling into the region through Venezuela, but rather Hizbullah and Iranian terror operatives.

Sure enough, the warning was issued by Shin Bet and Mossad to Israeli citizens internationally a couple weeks ago, advising them to return to Israel if possible. The agencies apparently became increasingly concerned of what they viewed as an active kidnapping threat by Hizbullah cells globally to Israeli businesspeople, specifically over the group's increased claims for spectacular operations in response to the February assassination of its security chief, Imad Mughniyeh. The threat specifically noted Latin America as a primary hot zone for such action.

Intelligence officials have stated that Hizbullah operatives, in coordination with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, created a specific group designed for such action in the Latin American region. The aim to kidnap the individuals and then quickly send them off to Hizbullah's fortress in Lebanon. A difficult maneuver for most terror groups, moving a group of hostages across the world, but one that is undeniably easier when you have your own direct airline.

It was reported that Venezuelan airport employees had been recruited to conduct surveillance on Jewish targets travels. It should be noted that in May, it was discovered that the head of security at Beirut's Rafic Hariri Intl. Airport was a Hizbullah informant and had allowed the group to place cameras throughout the airport, conducting surveillance on Syrian opposition leaders travels. The group has a history of making sure that its operatives can remain distant from the operation until it actually occurs, so such a report is not farstretched. Especially since it is well-documented that Venezuelan military and airport officials are profiting already from the cocaine trade.

Your own airline and your own bank? If terror groups had wish lists, those two items would most assuredly be at the top. But in the realm of state-sponsored terror, Iran can fulfill any fantasy that its Shi'a partners desire.

On a final note of the growing Iranian proxies continued growth throughout the Latin American region, the amount of Colombian cocaine moving through heavy regions of Hizbullah support is on the rise. Doug Farah, who has followed the region for decades, cautions that group's like Colombia's FARC rebels - who, after 40 years, are finally suffering greatly- may begin to form an alliance with Hizbullah. Such an action would create an unprecedented and very dangerous link between the most prolific narco-terrorists and the most expansive Islamic terrorist organization. However as evidenced by the Latin America-Iran connection, two worlds can come together pretty easily.